Statistical regularities are routinely offered as evidence that undeciphered sign systems encode language; the Indus script debate is the canonical example. Any such inference rests on specificity: the reported outcome must be unusual among plausible structured non-languages.

We test that premise constructively with SIGIL, a purpose-built generative emblem system whose 3,000-text core corpus carries explicit compositional meanings although no sign has a phonological value. A literature registry compiled in advance of evaluation records 54 methods and admits a method to exact scoring when both the published Indus outcome and a source-defined decision rule can be reproduced.

SIGIL receives the same category as the Indus corpus on every criterion scored this way, across repetition, directional-asymmetry, and lexical-distribution tests. Declared reconstructions of entropy, frequency, positional, predictive, classifier, and network measures reproduce the familiar Indus-like signatures as well.

A sequential decipherment stress test then reaches high dictionary coverage for English, Sanskrit, and Tamil on the same corpus, while grouped held-out declines and unstable keys reveal how little that coverage identifies. The construction does not decide what the Indus signs encode: it shows that the evaluated measures detect organization without being specific to language, and therefore cannot, on their own, establish encoded speech.